Hip resurfacing, in its current form, is a relatively recent development.

The main difference between traditional hip replacement and hip resurfacing lies in the femoral component (the ball of the hip joint). The socket is similar, but not exactly same, as most other cementless hip replacements.

In traditional hip replacement, the femoral head (which forms the ball of the hip joint) is removed entirely and replaced with an artificial ball of metal or ceramic. In the resurfacing operation, the femoral head is preserved, and only the surface of the head is removed to prepare it for the femoral component. The femoral component, is like a shell, or a cap, and is fixed to the remaining part of femoral head. The femoral head in conventional hip replacements is a sphere.   

The advantages of hip resurfacing are – better bone preservation on the femoral side, use of a large diameter allows for more physiological hip function, virtually no risk of dislocation, and allowing a higher range of movement.

The disadvantages are the possibility of fracture of the femoral neck as it becomes an area of high stress. There have been concerns relating to the articulation of the metal femoral component against the metal acetabular socket leading to production and release of large number of metal particles in the tissues around the hip joint, and into the blood stream.

The long term results of current designs are awaited, but short and medium term results are promising.

The information in the link for ‘Hip surgery’ is applicable to hip resurfacing, bearing in mind the above differences. The risks of hip replacement and hip resurfacing are also largely similar – the main difference being a lower risk of dislocation and a risk of femoral neck fracture in hip resurfacing.

Every person with hip arthritis may not be suitable for a resurfacing. The appropriateness for resurfacing is determined at the time of clinical and radiologic evaluation for treatment of hip arthritis.